I am recording here all events concerning those
who had the family name of STRANGE, STRAINGE and
other associated spellings to form the basis of a freely available one-name study for individual use only. The records are
recorded on the basis of place or type of event rather than personal names or date of events to make recording easy to follow and validate.
Researchers can search for particular instances of interest using the site search
tool on the home page.

I have included the source of information and a link try to say who provided it to me
whenever this is available to me and strongly encourage all researchers to quote
sources at all times..

I shall establish place identities as information is made available to me and you will see that the breakdown is essentially by
county and then by parish. Where the information for a parish becomes considerable I shall progressively open dedicated
pages for those parishes.

I have been asked this question on numerous occasions but there
is no single answer as there are several known origins and probably several
yet to be discovered. Hence, the following is but
scratching the surface:

1. From the French connection back in
the time when William 1st granted lands to some of his pals and thus began
the noble line of Le Strange to whom a few can properly demonstrate lineage.

2. From mutations of other names such
as STRAUNGE, STRANG and some also claim from STRONG although I have yet
to see proof positive of this. However, a DNA project may well expose some
answers.

3. The most prolific origins are far less
inspiring I am afraid; simply if someone new turned up in a village and
he didn't carry a name he may be called "the stranger" and a
new thread was born - I am talking about mediaeval times and earlier here. In
England the most significant areas for this are found in the south, Oxfordshire,
Berkshire, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Kent. It is impossible to say
how many people started this trend but they soon became mobile with the advent
of the railways until by 1901 (from a partial census of England and
Wales) there was quite broad coverage with some 1492 males and 1706 females, a total
of 3198 along with 40 STRAINGE, nil STRAUNGE and 205 STRANG.

One of the most stated connections that bears no certain proof
is between Alexander Strange1663-1670, who went from Bideford, Devon
to New Kent, Virginia, USA, and a father John Strange. The
late John Mayer (http://www.arapacana.com/)
was not certain about it and doubted if proof would ever be possible.
John said, " we have no idea who John Strange might
have been. Some think he was a ship owner from Bideford,
Devon, but there were several other John Stranges in London during
the same period." It would seem that many who claim
paternity are convinced that it the parents are John Strange 1631-1685
and Phebe Mitchell 1635 - 1710 as his provides a well proven line
back through the Le Strange lordships and baronetcies. John
Mayer also said, "the senior English lines were fairly small,
and that the earliest families Extranei of England met with complete
extinction at very early dates (1360s, 1592, 1780s). Heirs
male to the heritages de le Strange became so rarefied in England,
that their Styleman descendants had to resurrect the surname le
Strange by Royal License in the 1830s. ......We need to view our
lineages from several perspectives, sometimes resorting to collateral
relations, co-residence, and titles, instead of strictly blood-related
and descending patrilines."

Until someone comes up with irrefutable proof of this connection then
it would be wise for those claimants to temper their enthusiasm
and not replicate it yet again. The only possible technique for
establishing proof is probably via DNA testing as the Wiltshire
record office is seemingly unable to establish record of proof.

John Mayer saw the nub of the research difficulty, "Our
Double Problem: Thus, we are faced with a double problem. Exactly
who arrived in Virginia? Exactly who were the Stranges of
Devon?" There is much conjecture which becomes distorted
to purport to be fact with little to substantiate it."